YMTC: Is it goaltending?

[Natchez]

You Make The Call (YMTC) is a series of situations where you can play ref and make a call. YMTC situations are not meant to represent situations that have occurred at competitions.

In the finals, the blue team fell just a few points short in the first round. In the second round, the blue team has come up with a plan to counteract the red team taking the 2X ball off of the blue mobile goal. The round starts with redabot knocking the bonus balls off of their perches and positioning itself perfectly to get the 2X ball from the blue mobile goal. As soon as the autonomous period ends, redabot grabs the 2X ball on blue's mobile goal. Before redabot is able to remove the 2X ball, the blue team's human players hit the 2X ball, which is in the grasp of redabot and still on top of the blue mobile goal, with ALL 6 of the 5 point balls that are positioned in the player station.

YOU MAKE THE CALL! Do you ...
(please note that you can choose multiple options with this YMTC)

Please base your ruling on the 2004 rules. If you find a specific rule that addresses this situation, please share it with everyone.

[Figment]

The rules were specifically changed in one of the first few updates to state that as far as goaltending is concerned, the 2x ball is considered an extension of the robot when it is being held by that bot. This would lead me to believe that an extension of the robot is blocking the downard movement of those 6 balls into the mobile goal. Sounds like goaltending to me. -60 for the red team (though i can't imagine a human player firing off all 6 of the balls at the goal before the bot could fully remove the 2x ball)

[Matt_Kaplan1902]

A similar situation occured during the Central FL regional. Our partners, team 86, went to remove a capped mobile goal from the other alliance, and their human player shot two balls right at the 2x. This ensued a debate between the refs on wether or not there was goaltending, because the ball was removed from the goal (but still in the way of the goal.) We were penalized and lost the match. However, I dont't agree with the call because the human player shot the ball with no intenion of making the ball in the goal.

Go here and scroll down to match 92:

http://www.soap.circuitrunners.com/2004/movies/fl/

[jonathan lall]

To the letter, it is in fact goaltending, because the robot contacting the ball makes the ball count as 'part of the robot,' and clearly the balls would have to be in downward flight (unless they were bounce-passed or something). It's also clear however, that the balls were not intended to be scored, and to any reasonable person, it's a no-call. FIRST has purposely been vague and ambiguous here so that refs have a bit of leeway; they make no mention of human player or robot driver intent, meaning that refs can do what they think is appropriate. There should probably be a rule saying the refs can judge the intent and it's at their discretion to give penalties on that basis, which would eliminate the disparity between calls of this nature (i.e. one ref might give a penalty for this occurence while another might not). But we're engineers, not lawyers, so that would be a waste of time, because we all knew what FIRST meant.

[Kris Verdeyen]

The issue here is, I believe, intent. The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from building a device that prevents shots from being scored, or using a ball as such a device. The blue team's behavior breaks neither of these rules. Redabot is trying to play the game correctly, by getting the ball to cap a goal, and the blue team is cheaply trying to use a loophole to score some quick points. If I was a ref, I would award the Blue team no points and a stern lecture.

I'm also of the mind that, if a team doesn't dawdle in capping their opponent's goal, they shouldn't be called for goaltending if a ball or two happens to hit the big ball. The goaltending intent was not there, so the goaltending call shouldn't be there.

[Astronouth7303]

Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen

The issue here is, I believe, intent. The intent of the rule is to prevent teams from building a device that prevents shots from being scored, or using a ball as such a device. The blue team's behavior breaks neither of these rules. Redabot is trying to play the game correctly, by getting the ball to cap a goal, and the blue team is cheaply trying to use a loophole to score some quick points. If I was a ref, I would award the Blue team no points and a stern lecture.

I'm also of the mind that, if a team doesn't dawdle in capping their opponent's goal, they shouldn't be called for goaltending if a ball or two happens to hit the big ball. The goaltending intent was not there, so the goaltending call shouldn't be there.

I agree. If anything, I would penelize blue for goal tending. (Or are human players not eligable for that?) By the sound of it, either blue shot the balls before relizing that red had grabbed the 2x, or threw with the intention of bouncing the 2x out of redabot's grasp.

[DougHogg]

Wow! I hadn't thought of that one. Great question!

In soccer, the referee often looks at the intention of the player committing the act. For example, if the ball hits a player’s hand, did he put his hand there to block the shot or was his hand there already and the ball hit his hand before he could move it? If the player intentionally blocks a shot with his hand, it is a penalty.

In this case, since the yellow ball was already on the mobile goal, if the red team’s robot wasn’t there, the small balls would not have gone into the mobile goal anyway, so the blue team had no chance to score on that goal, and they could have shot at the other goal. The red team’s intention was to remove the yellow ball, not block the mobile goal. Blue’s intention was to try to cause red to commit a foul by shooting where blue had no chance of scoring. My ruling would be that the red team was not goal tending, since their effort was to remove the ball which would actually help blue score.

Here are the updated rules:

4.3.1 Definitions
GOALTENDING – A ROBOT cannot interfere with a SMALL ball on its downward flight toward a goal or within a goal.

<G20> ROBOTS cannot GOAL TEND either the Mobile or Stationary Goals. If a ROBOT GOALTENDs or de-SCORES any SMALL ball, the referee will throw a red/green or blue/green 10-point penalty flag for each occurrence.

<G21> In the case of goal tending and assisting, while the ROBOT is manipulating a large ball, it is considered an extension of the ROBOT.

[dlavery]

4.3.1 Definitions
GOALTENDING – A ROBOT cannot interfere with a SMALL ball on its downward flight toward a goal or within a goal.

<G20> ROBOTS cannot GOAL TEND either the Mobile or Stationary Goals. If a ROBOT GOALTENDs or de-SCORES any SMALL ball, the referee will throw a red/green or blue/green 10-point penalty flag for each occurrence.

<G21> In the case of goal tending and assisting, while the ROBOT is manipulating a large ball, it is considered an extension of the ROBOT.

This one is simple. The rules and the situation are clear and straightforward.

Redabot is in contact with the 2X ball. For the duration of that contact, the ball is considered part of Redabot. The blue alliance throws balls towards their mobile goal. The balls are deflected and prevented from entering the goal by the 2X ball (which is currently considered part of Redabot). Under Rule G20, this is clearly goaltending. Since this happens six times before the red alliance thinks enough to let go of the 2X ball or move the goal out of range, they will be penalized for each occurrence.

The INTENT of both the red and blue teams do not matter, and do not factor in to the determination. It is impossible for the referees to determine the intent of the teams, in this situation or any other. It is NOT the referees job to determine the intent of the teams, and during their training they are explicitly counseled not to do so. To ask them to determine intent is absurd, and would lead to questions of skewed impartiality, favoritism and poor judgment on virtually every referee call. The only things that should be considered are the specific, observable facts and the rules that apply to the situation.

Blue has played with a perfectly legal and viable strategy. Red has made the choice of contacting the 2X ball while in range of the blue human players throw. Red has put themselves in the situation where they could run afoul of the goaltending rule. No one else made them do it. They have chosen to take a risk, and in this situation it caught up with them.

The red alliance takes a 60 point penalty, and you move on.

-dave

[Joe Ross]

Lets modify this scenario a little.

What if redabot grabs the ball, and immediately after, bluabot also grabs the ball, and they are engaged in a tug of war when the 6 balls hit the big ball.

Is it still goaltending for redabot? What about bluabot? Can bluabot goaltend it's own goal?

[jonathan lall]

That is exactly why intent should be factored in; otherwise, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is perverted, and I'll explain why. First of all, regarding judging intent*, refs in athletic sports do it all the time -- it's a part of the game -- and so do FIRST ones, even though they may be officially instructed otherwise (I cite the example of tipping other robots). It's pretty reasonable to say that if both robots are fighting over the ball, the intent of Redabot is not to block shots (this is a judgement the ref can safely make, and if there is an argument everyone must remember a ref's call is final). Therefore, no penalties should IMO be counted and the human player(s) should cower in shame for wasting six shots and/or trying to cause the opponent to get penalties. This is not the way FIRST refs are instructed to call it, and I wouldn't argue it with an official should it happen to me; all I'm saying is that I don't believe it should be this way.

Here's what happens when the rules are interpreted exactly as they are written: Looking at <G21>, the ball is considered part of both robots, because they are both manipulating it. According to <G20>, blocking one's own shots results in penalties (in addition to of course, blocking the opponent's). Therefore both teams get -60 penalties, because there is no mention of intent in the rules.

The intent to goaltend in Redabot was not there. Giving penalties to the shooter's team is absurd (and isn't practiced by refs anyway, regardless of whether they are supposed to). Furthermore, Bluabot is forcing a penalty upon the opponent, which is neither G nor P in my book. By such logic, I could place my robot in front of my own corral in auto mode in order to disqualify the robot I know comes streaking down the side full-speed. This is not GP in my book.



* I should note that 'the Blue Alliance throwing balls toward their mobile goal' is a judgement of intent by the ref. How does (s)he know that the human player was throwing a ball at his/her own goal and not simply directly at a robot? Since the ref won't call a ball thrown at a robot in open field goaltending, the ref is judging the intent of the human player in order to ascertain whether or not to award a penalty.

[Brandon Holley]

As much as I disagree with the human players decision...it is goaltending. That strategy is definetly not GP, but legal

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

That is exactly why intent should be factored in; otherwise, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is perverted, and I'll explain why. First of all, regarding judging intent*, refs in athletic sports do it all the time -- it's a part of the game -- and so do FIRST ones, even though they may be officially instructed otherwise (I cite the example of tipping other robots). It's pretty reasonable to say that if both robots are fighting over the ball, the intent of Redabot is not to block shots (this is a judgement [sic] the ref can safely make, and if there is an argument everyone must remember a ref's call is final).

And how exactly have you determined that "unless intent is factored in, the whole reason the goaltending rule exists is being perverted?" Do you KNOW the exact reason that the goaltending rule was written, and the intent of those that wrote the rule? Unless you have explicit knowledge of the intent of the rule-writers, then all you are doing is guessing about their intent. And your guess is biased by your beliefs, personality, values, experiences, and preconceived notions. It is subjective, and of minimal value in the determination of the actual intent of those that wrote the rule. Therefore, your guess of their intent is fundamentally useless when trying to determine the actual intent. The only way to accurately identify the intent is to get it straight from those that wrote the rule, by asking them and letting them provide the answer.

And that is exactly why asking the referees to determine intent and apply that estimation to a rules interpretation is absurd. The referees cannot accurately determine the intent of a team just by observation. There is no way for them to identify what was in the minds of the team at the time a perceived violation took place. There is no reasonable way to identify the team intent in the context of an ongoing game, and it is unreasonable to try to determine it after the fact (I can just see it now - referees hooking up team members to lie detectors in between rounds to determine whether they meant to violate a rule or not...).

Since intent cannot be accurately determined by remote observation, and accurate determination of intent in the context of the game is unreasonable, any estimation of intent is by definition inaccurate. Since it is inaccurate, it must be ignored.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

* I should note that 'the Blue Alliance throwing balls toward their mobile goal' is a judgement [sic] of intent by the ref. How does (s)he know that the human player was throwing a ball at his/her own goal and not simply directly at a robot? Since the ref won't call a ball thrown at a robot in open field goaltending, the ref is judging the intent of the human player in order to ascertain whether or not to award a penalty.

No, it's not. Determination of whether the ball is being thrown towards the mobile goal or not is a straightforward decision. Either it is heading toward the goal, or it isn't. The presence or absence of an opposing robot is irrelevant to the determination.

If, by any reasonable estimation by any reasonable person, the ball is heading toward a goal on the field (please don't be a Clinton and make me define the term "toward"!!!), then it is heading toward the goal. If the ball is obviously going into an area of the field where there is no goal, then it is not heading toward a goal - whether there is another robot there or not.

Note that the referee does not have to estimate whether the ball has a high probability of going in the goal, or if it is going to hit the goal, or if it would fly straight in without touching the posts. Under the instructions that the referees are given (reference: notes from weekly telecon between Benje Ambrogi and regional head referees), all they have to do is decide if the ball - if the flight path were uninterrupted by the goaltending robot - COULD have hit the goal. If that is the case, and the flight path was interrupted by the opposing robot (including a 2X ball being held by the robot), then the goaltending rules apply.

This whole discussion illustrates exactly why the referees need to stick to strict interpretation of the rules. Attempts to determine a team's intent is, by definition, subjective and open to multiple interpretations. Observable facts are not. In this example, the facts are clear. The rules are clear. The intent of the team is indeterminate, and therefore irrelevant. You may not like it, but those are the rules.

-dave

[jonathan lall]

Dave, it would appear that we are of different camps with regard to how we believe refs should call games. I take a more judge-style approach that asks refs to make rulings often (for example the intent call), which have the potential to be inconsistent, whereas you (I believe) are saying that refs are there more to be conduits of what is written. The problem is, that I don't think what is written about goaltending addresses the above situation to my, or any ref's satisfaction. If the ref were to judge intent, however vague the rules were about this type of situation, it would not matter, because assuming the intent was caught on to, the ruling would be fair. I did not say what I believed the purpose of the goaltending rule was. In order to further this, now I will:

The goaltending rule is in place to prevent un-GP shot-blocking devices and strategies that would arise without such a rule.

I make no claim to have any knowledge of what it actually was (I'd have to ask someone like Dave Lavery to find out the actual answer!), but I think through inference that much can be figured out.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Determination of whether the ball is being thrown towards the mobile goal or not is a straightforward decision. Either it is heading toward the goal, or it isn't. The presence or absence of an opposing robot is irrelevant to the determination.

I think you misinterpreted here. I am using an example to show that while you are eliminating the variable of the robot driver's intent by saying you won't factor that into a goaltend call, the human player is given free reign over whipping balls at robots to cause penalties. In effect, by saying "the driver is guilty of goaltending whether he meant to or not," you are absolving the human player of all responsibility for any malicious action he takes.

Originally Posted by dlavery

If, by any reasonable estimation by any reasonable person, the ball is heading toward a goal on the field (please don't be a Clinton and make me define the term "toward"!!!), then it is heading toward the goal. If the ball is obviously going into an area of the field where there is no goal, then it is not heading toward a goal - whether there is another robot there or not.

You defined "toward" in the very next paragraph. So what if a human player intends to hit the robot which is not in the way of the goal (i.e. he could hit the goal but goes for the robot beside it)? Since the ref doesn't want to be a Clinton, he will call a penalty and say the ball was heading toward the goal, because maybe it missed by only two feet, and thus might have clipped PVC. According to his instructions, he must make this call. I should note that I have seen this happen before in a match without a call, because the ref judged the intent.

Originally Posted by dlavery

This whole discussion illustrates exactly why the referees need to stick to strict interpretation of the rules.

Agreed. If you think I am trying in any way to criticize the efforts of refs, you are sorely mistaken. Still, refs and rules are accountable, and reform is a neccesary part of any rules body. I think what I'm saying makes sense, and that is all I'm saying.

Originally Posted by dlavery

Attempts to determine a team's intent is, by definition, subjective and open to multiple interpretations. Observable facts are not.

Which is of course where you and I differ. I believe refs should use their judgment to determine call or no-call. Objectivity is overrated as I see it, and I think refs, having the final say and all, can handle judgment calls without fear of annoying high school students whining about their calls. I think in the same way that they are instructed to think of "toward" as you said, they can successfully be given a guideline to determine intent. Your approach eliminates this variable completely, which I admit is the next best thing, but I think it has its flaws; it'd be silly if handballs in soccer were always called, and I think calling a penalty on someone's actus reus alone (namely having your robot near the goal) shouldn't happen.

Originally Posted by dlavery

In this example, the facts are clear. The rules are clear. The intent of the team is indeterminate, and therefore irrelevant. You may not like it, but those are the rules.

We have paraded around my bias; to you the rules are clear. To me, they are not. Maybe that means I'm too stupid to figure them out, but judging by the fact that this YMTC exists, I'd say that they may not be as clear as you might believe.

I actually don't mind the goaltending rules as they are that much, and yes I realize they are the rules. I said that already. That doesn't mean we can't debate them and possibly work toward reforming them, does it?

[KenWittlief]

with the 2x ball sitting on top of the goal a HP has a reasonable chance of knocking it off by flinging a ball at it

but if a robot is holding the 2x ball on or over the goal, it is preventing that from happening - the bot is tending the goal and should be penalized for each ball that hits the 2X, or itself.

[AmyPrib]

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

, the human player is given free reign over whipping balls at robots to cause penalties. In effect, by saying "the driver is guilty of goaltending whether he meant to or not," you are absolving the human player of all responsibility for any malicious action he takes.

I personally think it's a little silly for a human player to maliciously "whip" balls at a robot in order to get them penalized. Why would anyone want to whip a ball at a robot (w/ or w/o a 2x ball)? Seems like a waste of time and possible points to be made elsewhere, even if you had good aim over the 7ft wall to "whip" it. I guess it could be a strategy but not a very good one (imo). You could wait the extra few seconds until they uncap it for you, and start making shots.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

You defined "toward" in the very next paragraph. So what if a human player intends to hit the robot which is not in the way of the goal (i.e. he could hit the goal but goes for the robot beside it)?

Well, taking all judge of "intent" out, if a robot is beside the goal, hp shoots the ball and it hits the robot, then I wouldn't really consider that as the ball going "towards" the goal anymore. You already passed the point of "toward" if it hit a robot sitting next to the goal, and you can either have a ball goal in the goal, or hit a robot sitting beside the goal, but not both. If the robot is just sitting there on the side minding it's own business, not impeding your ball's downward flight, and you throw a ball at the robot, how is that goaltending? That's called dodge ball, and the robot is out! That's like if a robot was behind the goal, you overshot the ball to the goal, and it hits the robot sitting behind it, that's not goaltending. This really is being over-thought when the rules are pretty simple.

As said many times now, you simply cannot expect the judges to call "intentions" of a team's action. This is not sports and you won't change it. The rules are there to be followed. The rules are there to help refs make good, fair calls that are equal for all teams. Judging intentions of a robot cannot be done by a standard set of guidelines, even though some sports try to do so. But especially in this environment and this situation, it's just not feasible.... Unless they can read minds, but let me bet, they can't. Even if they could, it's not based on intentions.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

I think refs, having the final say and all, can handle judgment calls without fear of annoying high school students whining about their calls. I think in the same way that they are instructed to think of "toward" as you said, they can successfully be given a guideline to determine intent.

Yeah right.. if we let actions be judged on intent, we'd not only have the high school students "whining", but everyone else in the building. Again, that's why we have rules... rules are written as best they can to avoid relying on anyone's opinion of what happened. (no i don't know the background of why the rules were written, but I believe that's one part of it ) We have a rule that states "a robot cannot cross the diamond plate wall into the hp ball corral". Should a ref back down on that penalty simply because the driver said "I didn't mean to cross into the corral, really I didn't".
As for the situation described earlier, if two robots are fighting over a 2x ball, I can't really give an opinion on that, I'm not sure what happens. I haven't seen it happen, and really hadn't thought about it. But you cannot goaltend yourself. I think that was discussed early in the season too.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

We have paraded around my bias; to you the rules are clear. To me, they are not. Maybe that means I'm too stupid to figure them out, but judging by the fact that this YMTC exists, I'd say that they may not be as clear as you might believe.

No, you're not too stupid. I just think that some of the rules have been debated over and argued about and twisted any which way they could be in order to have a debate. Not deliberately, but any little loop hole that can be found to dance around the rule, it'll be debated.

This thread started out as a "is it goaltending if you uncap a goal?" type situation and YES.. it's goaltending because the rule says so. But all the little misinterpretations or "but it could mean this" gets blown out of proportion and tend to snowball.

I do believe, although the rules are pretty clear on most/all subjects, it's good to have the questions and debates come about to a certain extent. It does alert those in charge of things that need to be cleared up and even sometimes clarified at events so that everyone is on the same page.

Originally Posted by jonathan lall

I actually don't mind the goaltending rules as they are that much, and yes I realize they are the rules. I said that already. That doesn't mean we can't debate them and possibly work toward reforming them, does it?